Hello all!
I was recently reading the thread "What are the 10 commandments really about" and Pitar's comment included the following:
"There is no proper way to read the bible. Claiming there is a proper way tells everyone who reads it the message it imparts to them may be the workings of their imaginations only and not the intended message."
Are there people who agree with this statement - that there is NO proper way to read the Bible?
Here is the thread where Pitar's entire comment can be found. However, it is not completely necessary to read it for this discussion.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-are-10-commandmen...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Yes...you have to read it in context. If you don't know what the context is, like for example when Jesus coldly tells the guy he can't go say goodbye to his family if he is to follow him. Or when Jesus tells you to hate your father and mother and brother etc. He didn't really mean the words he chose. You have to find the right context based on what you are told the true character of god is.
Isn't it funny that the creator of the universe can't choose the right words.
such a confusing set of beliefs. But that's what makes it so perfect for indoctrination and controlling people. Abusers are like that. Christianity takes gas lighting to perfection.
A hermeneutic is equivalent to a confirmation bias.
Please explain how "A hermeneutic is [ALWAYS] equivalent to a confirmation bias".
I inserted always because if it is not always then you should qualify your statement. Otherwise it is incorrect. It would be more accurate to state that "[poor hermeneutical methods or certain uses of hermeneutics CAN lead] to a confirmation bias."
If you you don't mean always, which would be fair since I inserted that word, then you mean sometimes; and if you mean sometimes then I am failing to see why your statements holds much weight.
Are you stating that we should ditch ALL hermeneutics when reading the scriptures?
I read the bible both, out the text old and new testaments by trying to under stand what the original hebrew was saying and of course in the new testament the Greek and latin, and i try to gather in which is called exergesis the scriptures the context of the sentence.I look at maps and geography, Also i get a bible handbook and commentary to see what other authors are saying about a particular text.You have to remember it`s context context context The scholars and the pastors and priests say that the bible is inspired one sees that throughout the bible. the prophets the wisdom sayings the history etc.one might include the psalms written by david who comprised more then half of the 150 total psalms.
I have some questions for you. Given that it is well known that the first sign of ritual burial and spiritual beliefs happened around 40 thousand years ago. What took god so long to introduce himself to his "created" beings?
And.......If you were a parent, would leave something out that you didn't want your child to see or get into, tell them to not touch it or use it, then leave, and when you return and discover that their curiosity got the best of them, condemn them and tell them they are completely and utterly depraved and curse the rest of their days?
@ devout @#$%^&*!
The fact that the bible isn't the exact same thing for everyone that reads it makes it clear that it isn't from ANY fucking god. A god, that supposedly created ALL humankind, if said god inspired a book for all of that humanity to live by, would not make a MISTAKE and leave it up to interpretation and it would be in a language that all could easily understand. That isn't the case with any bible (and there are many). All bibles are limited in knowledge to anyone that lived in the Roman Empire of the third century. The bible doesn't tell history. I doubt very much that David wrote anything. He was most likely illiterate.
devout christian,
I'm always amused by people who think that they are better translators than guys like Martin Luther, Cloverdale, or the King James committee.
Jesus did so at the appointed time the bible states clearly, Children are not accountable its when your an adult that counts when you have reason capabilities. God has mercy on some but justice on others. romans chapter nine.the elect are saved and the rest get what is coming to them, THats how it goes according to my brand of christianity.
you do realize that your heaven will be populated by a ratio of 99 to 1 of fetuses embryos and toddlers who never reached the age to be able to choose your god vs so called christians? Think about that for a second......those are moral robots. I thought god wanted people to freely choose him??????
@ devout @#$%^&*!
Fuck christianity, your brand or any brand. I have not "sinned", am not guilty of anything, jesus probably never existed, and I will not let YOU or anyone else hold ME accountable for some stone age myth bullshit.
"Children are not accountable "
So your deity didn't kill every child in the world then, as the bible states in the Noah flood myth? How about all the children in the city of Sodom, did he hold those accountable and kill them? The Amalekite children, even infants?
"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, **child and infant,** ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Sam 15:1‑3)"
Did your deity murder a newborn baby by torturing it for 7 days until it died? Holding it accountable because it was conceived illegitimately?
The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.15
When God made the baby sick, David pleaded with God to stop tormenting him. But God wouldn't listen.
David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18
None of that sounds like a merciful deity to me. Thankfully it's all a fiction...
devout christian,
There are no passages in the Bible that say that children go to the golden cube. There is only one or two that hint that women get in, the main one being that there are no marriages in heaven.
If you are reading the Gospels, it helps to read them all at the same time. That way you do not make the mistake of linking the stories together. They are different stories about different lives, births and deaths of different people.
Cognostic,
The purposes of the biblical stories is to illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments that are found in Exodus chapter 34:12-28 in action. The purpose of the miracles is to illustrate Exodus 34:10. When you read the stories you should be able to link them to one or more of the Ten Commandments.
If there is a 'proper' way it is objectively, without bias and therefore without interpretation which necessarily must include bias. It goes without saying that as with any book making claims, a healthy scepticism should be applied, and all claims should be supported by evidence commensurate to those claims, as you should do with all claims in all books. If you apply a different standard to the bible that's bias.
So if there is no proper way to read the bible Sheldon, then you would disagree with Devout Christian that Context is a proper method of reading scripture. Correct?
Restated do you affirm that understanding the context of passages and books and the Bible itself is an incorrect way to read the Bible.
Yes/No
I ask this of everyone on this thread.
"So if there is no proper way to read the bible Sheldon, then you would disagree with Devout Christian that Context is a proper method of reading scripture. Correct?"
Wed, 11/22/2017 - 07:46 Permalink
Sheldon "If there is a 'proper' way it is objectively, without bias and therefore without interpretation"
Why do theists ignore what people post when they don't like the answer and simply repeat the question?
-----------------------
"do you affirm that understanding the context of passages and books and the Bible itself is an incorrect way to read the Bible."
Did I say that, or even imply it? If a sentence in a book says 2+2 is equal to 4, do I need to interpret it until I get an answer other than 4 because I don't like the answer 4, as it doesn't fit my beliefs about the book?
Now once again for you, and this needs no interpreting thank you, as I mean it precisely as I have written it...
"as with any book making claims, a healthy scepticism should be applied, and all claims should be supported by evidence commensurate to those claims, as you should do with all claims in all books. If you apply a different standard to the bible that's bias."
"as with any book making claims, a healthy skepticism should be applied, and all claims should be supported by evidence commensurate to those claims, as you should do with all claims in all books. If you apply a different standard to the bible that's bias."
----
I agree with this statement! Well said. I am hearing that your methodology on reading Scripture is:
"Read the text with an analytical perspective, being sure to test any claims made by the text."
If this is your position, I would agree with you. I restated it in my own terms to make sure I'm understanding you. I hope this isn't a bad virtue to have on this website - trying to understand another's position.
That being said, then what are the subcategories of your methodology? For example: seeking to understand lexical context is a way of reading the text with an analytical perspective, therefore, context is a sub category within your frame work. Therefore, you would agree with Devout Christian.
Some other ones would be understanding the historical context, or semantic range of words, etc. What would be your list? Or the list of others on this thread for that matter?
Is there a proper way to read the bible?
There is no one way, there are many ways to read the bible. There are so many hidden gems in the Bible that many Christians look at a verse/s in the old and then refer or compare to another verse in the New. I've also heard the saying, "In the Old T, things are hidden, in the New T things are revealed". I love this saying, so beautiful.
I think the saying goes, "The Old is the New concealed. The New is the Old revealed."
Chica__2009,
Remember, when the Catholics held sway it was against their rules for the average person to read the Bible. It was off limits to the mob.
Here's an article in PDF format from the February 25. 1873, edition of the New York Times. It's about the long controversy of whether it was allowable to read the Bible in the schools. The Protestants were for it; the Catholics were against it. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9901E7DA1539EF34BC4D51...
I'm actually 100% sure this is taken out of context. You know how dangerous a faulty translation of the Bible can be? From a theological perspective, you actually get different doctrines from a badly translated Bible. What is actually, "We have been justified by faith" translated into, "We have been justified by faith alone." is a pretty big leap.
Oh bullshit HelloWhatamldoi.
There are no hidden gems in the bible, and nothing is revealed.
mykcob4 "Oh bullshit HelloWhatamldoi.
There are no hidden gems in the bible, and nothing is revealed."
Unless they're hidden so well the bible becomes inscrutable from vapid flimflam as a result, in which case I'd have to say Occam's razor would apply, and the extra (and extraordinary) claims for the supernatural are superfluous. As a simpler and more obvious explanation is self evident once you free yourself from the yoke of faith and indoctrination.
I'm inclined to agree with you that what is 'revealed' is the bible's singularly unimpressive ability to reveal anything that is not morally relative (and often repugnant) to ancient middle eastern human culture, historically inaccurate, scientifically erroneous, or factually risible like the flood myth of Noah's Ark.
The only thing revealed is the gullibility of humans...
Yes, gullibility is one thing revealed particularly with the Pharisees. But it's definitely not the only thing revealed.
@Hello.....!
He was talking about how people have been duped by the god myth.
The fact that we need priests, preachers, and various other superstition pedlars to guide us on how to read the bible is proof that it's not the word of any deity. Instructions from a god would be crystal clear to everyone who read or heard them without guidance from religious con-men, and without Mormon magic translating glasses.
The Code of Hammurabi is perfectly understandable. So is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it's been called the "unconditional surrender of the English language. So why is the so-called revealed word of god in the Bible and the Koran so ambiguous and inconsistent?
Pages